Why didn't we just close the borders and stop air travel, Dad?
Our thought-leaders and politicians have come out to tell us of the real problems with Coronavirus: racism, xenophobia, nationalism, and borders. Pretty much anything that challenges the neo-liberal, cosmopolitan orthodoxy.
French President Emmanuel Macron has stated that:
"Two pitfalls must be avoided, one is the nationalist withdrawal because this virus has no passport."
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated that:
Closing Canada's borders and restricting travel is a knee-jerk reaction that will not slow the spread of the Coronavirus.
(If closing borders in March in response to an viral outbreak that started in January is a 'knee-jerk' reaction, then that is the slowest knee-jerk I've seen. [Oh,and now his wife has tested positive for the virus after coming back from the UK]. I guess if you let your wife get Coronoavirus, you win.)
Steven Pinker says:
"The Coronavirus Pandemic is one of many reasons neo-nationalism is destructive & ultimately futile. Viruses (like greenhouse gases, cybercriminals, dark money, terrorists, pirates, & technology) don’t care about lines on a map."
Richard Dawkins chimes in:
"Nasty FOREIGN virus. Lock it up! Lock it up! Keep America safe. No FOREIGNERS from Europe allowed. Except Brits of course. They’re not really foreign. They speak English. Don’t they? I think they do, I went to London, I met the Queen, they love me there."
It's almost like they're getting out there to fend off an anticipated reaction...
First, they must know that they're viciously equivocating fears of foreigners with fears of the virus - particularily Pinker and Dawkins. Its not the case that people who want their nations' borders shored up and inter-national travel restricted because they just don't like those dirty foreigners. They don't want travel to and fro because foreigners are people and people carry the virus.
The cute quips about viruses not caring about borders is so obviously stupid, that it sounds like a joke.
Also, Pinker's neologism 'neo-nationalism' is also dumb. Nationalism, first of all, is more of a default setting for national and international understanding than Pinker's globalism, so there isn't anything really 'neo-' about it. The very fact that Pinker and others feel like they have to 'in before' nationalistic approaches or motivations to the viral containment shows that nationalism is baked into people's assessments.
It is also an opportunistic word that he can use to cast aspersions at his political and social opponents whilst also attempting to turn his own ideological framework of 'globalism' into the default setting. It is the language of global capital, finance, industry, complex global supply chains, and technocracy. It is the language of our age's orthodoxy.
Oh, and it sound a little like 'neo-nazi'. So, he can slide in nazi insults while he pontificates.
Now, these are difficult times with tough decisions. Closing borders means serious economic impacts, and serious economic impacts can exasperate medical issues as goods, services, and money become increasingly unavailable. But easy travel and porous borders brought the virus to our shores in the first place.
I wouldn't argue for a full, air-tight travel ban - though situations will differ - but platitudes and moral hand-wringing won't work. In fact, they could just reinforce the opposition to globalisation - so, in some sense, the Pinkers and Macrons of the world are welcome to spout their talking points.
I don't know how much entropy Coronavirus will throw into the system. Inertia is a powerful force. But this pandemic, like climate change, will require tough decisions and strong, honest, clear leadership: traits that are sorely lacking in our litter of leaders.
I do think that globalism will be undermined.
People will have to be locked out. Mobility will have to be reduced. Supply chains will have to be truncated. Costs and advantages will have to be reassessed. Time horizons for planning with have to be lengthened. Medical and military priorities will have to be realigned. But those are challenges for our nation's leaders. Us, here on the ground, have to exercise caution and become more self-sufficient - re-discover old knowledge and reduce external needs. Learn to make and preserve foods; fish, trap or hunt. Get healthier and stay that way. Reduce reliance on global supply chains; get local. Increase production, not consumption - if you need something, try making it yourself. Keep friends and family close, and stay in touch. Communication with loved ones is important in unstable times, and you should all have each other's backs. Stay mentally engaged and stable, and try to enjoy the life you are trying to create. There are many things out of our control, but those things that we do control should be fashioned out of intent, and deliberation.
This isn't just the calm before the storm. This could be the beginning of an age. And we're in it for the long haul.
I'll leave this ramble with a quote by CS Lewis:
"In one way we think a great deal too much of the atomic bomb. “How are we to live in an atomic age?” I am tempted to reply: “Why, as you would have lived in the sixteenth century when the plague visited London almost every year, or as you would have lived in a Viking age when raiders from Scandinavia might land and cut your throat any night; or indeed, as you are already living in an age of cancer, an age of syphilis, an age of paralysis, an age of air raids, an age of railway accidents, an age of motor accidents.”
In other words, do not let us begin by exaggerating the novelty of our situation. Believe me, dear sir or madam, you and all whom you love were already sentenced to death before the atomic bomb was invented: and quite a high percentage of us were going to die in unpleasant ways. We had, indeed, one very great advantage over our ancestors—anesthetics; but we have that still. It is perfectly ridiculous to go about whimpering and drawing long faces because the scientists have added one more chance of painful and premature death to a world which already bristled with such chances and in which death itself was not a chance at all, but a certainty.
This is the first point to be made: and the first action to be taken is to pull ourselves together. If we are all going to be destroyed by an atomic bomb, let that bomb when it comes find us doing sensible and human things—praying, working, teaching, reading, listening to music, bathing the children, playing tennis, chatting to our friends over a pint and a game of darts—not huddled together like frightened sheep and thinking about bombs. They may break our bodies (a microbe can do that) but they need not dominate our minds."
— “On Living in an Atomic Age” (1948)
No comments:
Post a Comment